DailyDirt: Games Aren't Just For Fun Anymore

from the urls-we-dig-up dept

Gamification is a nice buzzword for "tricking" people into doing useful things. Players can be rewarded with badges or points or just the satisfaction of winning the game. And in return, the game designer filters out spam or translates text or discovers a genius who can unlock the ninth chevron. Here are a few more examples.

Re: Submarine simulators

I never really understood flight simulators as "games" -- since realistic virtual flying just seems kinda boring. (I can understand Danger from the Deep, though, since it's a submarine simulator set in a WWII context... but if it were just a simulator without any "danger" -- then what's the point?)

Re: Re: Submarine simulators

I think that "games" that only consist of virtual flying, or virtual trains, or whatever, with no clear goals, are labeled as games because it's something that most people understand. Label them as a virtual toy and many people would be confused as to what to expect. Label them as "simulations" and people would expect them to full of statistics and such. Label them as games and people will know that they are designed for fun.

I used to know an older guy (sadly now deceased) who loved playing Flight Simulator II on the C64 and then the Amiga. He bought all the scenery disks for it and would spend hours just flying. I always preferred combat flight simulators myself, although being a fan of trains, I do see the appeal of a software product that just lets you play with virtual trains.

Re: Re: Re: Submarine simulators

Maybe I should try and explain a bit - (though I'd still recommend you read my blog to fully understand).

As I said in my previous post, simulators can be perceived as games. But it does depend on whether or not an individual person sees all of the elements the word game represents in such an activity.

(Games are about people competing in a structured - (created rules) - environment by doing something for themselves).

The main element which causes problems for some people with simulators, is competition. The main reason for this, is because in order for such software to be viewed as being competitive as a whole, it must involve indirect competition.

All single-player games (and even (created?) puzzles), involve indirect competition.

Unfortunately, however, many people fail to recognise and understand the presence and role of indirect competition, (since it's so prevalent throughout our entire lives and existence, most people have long since learned to ignore it), and as such have trouble recognising many activities as being competitive - (some people even go as far as saying that games are not competitive, when they obviously are, once you understand what competition represents):

The basic use of competition, is as an application of compete:

Compete n. To try and gain an outcome/goal at the expense of, or in spite of, someone or something else.

It's the ability to compete in spite of something else - in this case, the setting and rules governing the behaviour of whatever the player is controlling - that allows indirect competition to fully exist.

Of course, in addition to that, simulators tend to be very open-ended and free to the 'players', which again, many people have trouble dealing with in the context of the word game.

But that's FINE, so long as everyone understands what it is the word game itself represents, (which such activities can then be compared to, but, unfortunately, that isn't the case at this time) - a subjective application of a (hopefully) objective definition, which is exactly how the language is supposed to work!